Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Up to 800 jobs for Rosyth as supercarriers get go-ahead



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 May 2008
HUNDREDS of new jobs are in prospect for Rosyth after the Ministry of Defence today gave the long-awaited go-ahead for two new super aircraft carriers.
The two vessels – the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed in the UK – will be built by a consortium including Babcock International, which runs Rosyth dockyard.

The MoD today said it was ready to go ahead with signing the contract as soon as the joint venture company was formed.

The carriers are to be constructed in sections in shipyards at Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth, with final assembly at Rosyth.

A source at Babcock said the work could mean as many as 800 new jobs at Rosyth over the lifetime of the contract, which is worth around £600 million to the company.

Earlier this year there were fears the project could be cancelled after the House of Commons Defence Select Committee said cost overruns on a series of orders for defence equipment were so serious some planned expenditure would have to be cut.

But today Defence Secretary Des Browne confirmed the ships would be built.

He said: "The two aircraft carriers will provide our frontline forces with the modern, world-class capabilities they will need over the coming decades. They will support peace-keeping and conflict prevention as well as our strategic operational priorities.

"This is an important day for the project and I am delighted that we are moving closer to signing the contracts for the manufacture of the carriers."

The carriers, to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will enter service in 2014 and 2016 and are expected to remain in the fleet for up to 50 years.

Babcock chief executive Peter Rogers said the company was delighted by today's announcement. He said: "We look forward to participating with all our partners in what will be one of the most exciting British defence projects for many years."

Baroness Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said: "Today's confirmation that we are proceeding with the two aircraft carriers underlines our commitment to both the Royal Navy and to the UK shipbuilding industry.

"We are investing about £14 billion in the Navy and in the maritime industry over the next ten to 15 years.

"The future carriers will provide an important military capability and will sustain many jobs – around 10,000 at the peak of production."

The 65,000-tonne carriers will be about 280m long by 70m wide load and carry up to 40 aircraft.

First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said: "These ships with their aircraft will transform the UK's defence capabilities, delivering air power in support of the full range of future operations at sea, in the air and on land."

Other companies involved in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance include BAE Systems, VT Group and Thales UK.


The full article contains 493 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 May 2008 1:18 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

alex paterson,

At the moment in Sevilla 20/05/2008 13:32:03
This is great news for both Glasgow and Rosyth,its a pity we still need these deterrents but,the work will be very welcome.
2

alex paterson,

At the moment in Sevilla 20/05/2008 13:32:04
This is great news for both Glasgow and Rosyth,its a pity we still need these deterrents but,the work will be very welcome.
3

CRAGman,

20/05/2008 13:34:21
The UK delivers again.
4

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 13:35:45
This is great news .... we actually need about 8 carriers at about 100,000 tonnes - but this is certainly this is a step in the right direction.

The Military should be getting about treble their current budget - in other words about half the budget of that waste of time - Social services.
5

Smasher,

20/05/2008 14:55:12
Tesco and Asda told me that they are banning carriers in the very near future. Why are these new carriers so big, 280m long and 70m wide. What do they plan to carry in them.....aeroplanes. Honest it's a slow day in the office today.
6

,

20/05/2008 15:22:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

alex paterson,

At the moment in Sevilla 20/05/2008 15:56:52
Brown the donkey,what wrong has any donkey done to be associated with this prat.
8

Angus R,

20/05/2008 16:50:53
So Edinburgh could have had 2 aircraft carriers and we wasted it building a tram!!!

Probably could have just turned them sideways and hey presto - two new forth crossings!!
9

John Knox furr First Meenister,

High St, Embra 20/05/2008 16:51:30
Good call, Voldemort. Aircraft Carriers are so much more fun than pensioners. You can put lots of wee planes on them. Well, you can on toy ones anyway.
10

911 was an inside job.,

20/05/2008 17:10:06
Why can't we comment on the spurned noofter article?
11

911 was an inside job.,

20/05/2008 17:16:38
When the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, Britain (England & Scotland) will cease to exist as nations. The EU is forming its own army. The aircraft carriers will end up as EU property. They WILL fly the ring o' stars. 'British' soldiers, sailors and airmen will have to swear and oath of allegiance to the EU.

12

John Knox furr First Meenister,

High St, Embra 20/05/2008 17:50:55
#11 Really? Scary. Next you'll be telling us that 911 was an inside job!
13

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 18:08:31
3

Only because Scotland is pushing for its Independence and now we get the wee bribes and the unsubtle politicing from the unionists.
Had Scotland not come so far in its desire to leave the union those contracts would have ended up down south as usual.
What are we going to do with these carriers once we get them?? and when we become Independent do we get to keep one?? It would make a nice tourist attraction.
14

Brian M,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 18:10:50
Is that 800 new jobs which will last from the start of the contract until the end, or just short term jobs which could only be for months?
15

Brian M,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 18:23:39
#12 "..that 911 was an inside job"

Is 911 not an emergency dialling code, why should it be an inside job?
16

John Knox furr First Meenister,

High St, Embra 20/05/2008 18:49:12
Well spotted. But y'see it's also the name by which the Twin Towers attacks have become known. Aye.
17

Nikostratos,

20/05/2008 18:49:29
Hooray for Gordon hooray for the union dividend.........And what jobs has Alex got for scotland
18

Nikostratos,

20/05/2008 18:50:18
#18

None none at all.zilch
19

Brian M,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 18:56:13
#16

Twin Towers ?
20

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 20/05/2008 19:13:23
In response to #18 and 19,possibly these jobs.I have observed that in the past,London has been most committed to job creation in Scotland when the SNp has been succesful.Remember the saving of the Hillman IMp factory?

Actually the real issue is how many jobs could an independent country deliver.I live in Finland where unemployment is very low and quality of life is high.Perhaps we should be aski ng why a country with less resouces than Scotland is able to deliver free education,better health care,better public transport and better quality of life.

Of course Scotland has the expertise to handle this contract.Why should we be grateful?







21

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 20/05/2008 19:17:06
Sorry,Finland is two hours ahead.I meant to say that possibly these jobs are due to the SNP electoral success.My couson who lives in Rosyth would probably agree.He has seen everything in his working life.
22

Nikostratos,

20/05/2008 19:18:20
#20 bill

Hillman imp.'WHAT'.................."why a country with less resouces than Scotland" Thats easy bill there is no snp in Finland..........
23

TM,

LA, USA 20/05/2008 19:30:47
Why doesn't the Scotsman allow comment on the three Amazing stories of random violence??
24

Lang Spoon,

Flanders Fields, Leith 20/05/2008 19:35:36
As a cynic, I can honestly say that these ships will never be built; they are simply a job-creation exercise/bribe (delete to taste) and are of very limited use. In a real shooting war they would simply be two large targets for incoming missiles (Exocet anyone?) and would need a large screen of (yet to be built) protective smaller ships. Oh, and one more thing, the small matter of which aircraft will operate from them is conveniently not mentioned; our good friends the US of A, in a spirit of togetherness, are still refusing to sell us the top secret software for the US-designed carrier aircraft. It's all smoke and mirrors readers!
25

,

20/05/2008 19:41:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

is it me?,

20/05/2008 20:47:11
#9, John Knox

Can you get these toy pensioners on Amazon ?

I'd love to keep one in a shoebox with cotton wool and put wee planes on him.
27

is it me?,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 21:04:28
#21 Suomi (yes, we know that's Finland)
Oh behave yourself. How can anyone who lives in Rosyth have seen "everything in his working life" ?

If he works at what used to be known as, " the Dockyard", then that's all he knows... along with generations of other Fifers.
28

Alan Reid,

NZ 20/05/2008 21:49:57
3 CRAGman, Maybe this will help some of the 3000 Scots that were put out of work in 91 get some work.
Perhaps you forget the way the English National Party (Tories) shafted Scotland in 91 over the Devenport V Roysth debacle.
Roysth had the facilities’, was 22 million cheaper, had more experience, than Devenport.
But guess what happened? Yes Scotland gets shafted again so some Tory scumbag under John Majors Government can hold onto his seat.
So don’t tell me that the “UK delivers again” this is nothing compared to what Scotland has lost over the years to the corruption of Westminster.

Signed A Reid (CyberNat)
29

is it me?,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 22:10:18
#28, Alan Reid.

Read the article. What's Devonport getting out of this deal? Nothing mentioned.
What about the workers there? Or do your humanitarian concerns only extend as far as Carlisle?
30

Auckland Arab2,

20/05/2008 22:13:35
The 800 jobs are welcome but we don't need to be grateful as presumably Rosyth won the bid on the strength of their case? You Unionists are laughable, behaving like kids waiting for their sweetie money!

FYI, the Union has delivered £330bn in oil revenues to HM Treasury, that is the real Union dividend and it is debatable if this has been a dividend to Scotland's advantage.
31

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 20/05/2008 22:19:02
I'm amazed at some of the blatant ignorance which so many Brits have displayed, concerning what uses a Carrier Fleet has, and how politicians can use those fleets to STOP wars, rather than allow them to happen.

Why don't some of you try reading Clausewitz, Bismarck, Churchill, et al, concerning Geo-Politics, and Realpolitik.

Its fine and dandy to live in your own little fantasy worlds, believing in whatever particular personal dogmas in which you engage, but the world has a really nasty way of breaking into those personal worlds-brutally, violently, and in a long lasting manner.

Just ask Chamberlain, Daladier, and the rest of the mindless twits who refused to take Hitler at his word.

Now it's Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Putin, et al.

But you PC/SP Lot won't listen until massive numbers of bodies start piling up-THEN you'll start whining about 'why didn't anybody do SOMETHING BEFORE all this happened?'

That's what the two Carrier Fleets are for: not that any of you sorry Lot understand that fact.

Cheers from the Rockies
32

is it me?,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 22:36:10
How come some of these Nationalist posters' locations are as far away from Scotland as you can get ?
33

cockatiel,

australia 20/05/2008 23:40:46
at 280 mtrs long and 70 mtrs wide you will be able to sail them on huggingfield loch and they will look nice with the model planes on deck ???somebody got a proper tape measure.
34

Boswall,

21/05/2008 00:23:43
#24 Lang Spoon

The UK gained operational sovereignty over the F35's it intends to purchase back in 2006, so I think it's pretty likely that the 2 QE class carriers will be housing these aircraft (and their successors given the future proof design).

Secondly, the screen of 'as yet' unbuilt defence ships .....will that be the type 45 destroyers you're talking about? 1 built already and undergoing sea trials, 7 more on the way.

In a real shooting war, large flat tops are worth their weight in nukes ;)
35

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 08:13:37
31

Name one war stopped or prevented by an aircraft carrier??
36

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 08:22:00
34

A real shooting war with who?? Russia?? China?? both countries have the technology to take out aircraft carriers in seconds and smaller nations dont have the means to challange a navy with large ships so they would have no use and nobody to fight. A Naval airforce is no match for a land based airforce.
Britain won the Falklands war by the skin of its teeth. the two carriers failed to protect the fleet from exocet missles.
Warfare has changed there is no requirement for this type of hardware. The US is trawling the world with large fleets of ships with nobody to challange them so whats the point?? what are they actually achieving with them?? All of the US fleets combined cant help them in Iraq or Afganistan.
todays oceans belong to silent running submarines not surface ships.
37

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 08:22:59
32

Cos theyre sick and tired of living within the corrupt union and I for one dont blame them.
38

Rv2!,

21/05/2008 08:58:24
799 Polish can be happy.
39

DaveK,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 09:06:44
Well there was that little matter of a war in the pacific in the 40's, not to mention a spat in the South Atlantic in the early 80's all of which would not have been won without the use of carriers. I could go on! Besides anyone who knows the worth of these highly important ships would realise it is the wars that they actually prevent that is the important thing.
40

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 21/05/2008 09:16:28
Hello Foulkes,

Apparently you've never bothered to learn any history; particularly of the 20th century.

Aircraft Carriers allow a country to PROJECT power into places that Land based assets cannot match. Why? Because unless you've got Air Bases within supportable tactical striking range, your Air Forces become utterly useless.

Flat tops are roving Air Bases. While the Tomcats were still flying, each F-14 fully loaded had the effectual firepower of a WWII destroyer! That's just ONE Tomcat!

The Pacific Theatre of WWII was decided by Aircraft Carriers; just ask the Japanese.

A country with hostile leaders doing some nasties, or publicly stating that they intend to do some nasties? Send a Flat Top with its attendant Carrier Group and guess what?

The rhetoric and military troop movements of those doing the Bad Mouthing STOP rather quickly.

Why?

Because even the most dyed in the wool Bad-Mouther promising a truck load of nasties against their neighbors (against our presumed 'friends'), sit up and take notice of a Carrier Group cruising their way. Dozens of ships, some of which carry Nuke tipped Tomahawks which are part and parcel of a Carrier Group, make a definite impact on the psyches of the Bad Guys.

Carrier groups have helped the Bad Guys in the Middle East, the Far East, and yes, the Sub-Continent (back in The Day), change their thinking during the last half of the 20th century.

Take the time to learn what Carrier Groups are about and what they can do, and more to the point, what they have done. If you're an honest person, you'll change your tune.

Cheers from the Rockies
41

Alasdair,

21/05/2008 09:20:14
I never realised that Rosyth was in Edinburgh, but according to the sectioning of this idiot website it is.
Does my number 7 bus get me there?

You also have to laugh at the fact that this rag will do anything to marginalise mentioning that some of these jobs will be going to our weegie cousins.
42

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 21/05/2008 10:20:17
#36

Absouloutely clueless, carrier based aircraft are flying missions in Afghanistan right now. what mighty technology do the Russians and Chines have, both are very strictly second world naval powers at the moment. The problem in the Falklandswas that in Littoral waters reaction times to aircraft popping up over the hill is minimal. without the carriers we would have lost far more ships. American carriers in the Gulf have the capacity to defeat every land based airforce in the region. Submarines cannot face people down as you have to use them, carriers are a visible detterent in alocal area.
43

Boswall,

21/05/2008 10:42:15
Hi Foulkes,

As others have already pointed out it’s about the projection of power. Nato effectively have operational control over two thirds of the planets surface, which is worth the investment alone and why the US, UK and France continue to invest large sums in new carrier groups.

What weapons system are you referring to when you assert that the Russians and Chinese have the power to magic them out of existence?

You can make all the sweeping statements you like but history provides an alternative and perhaps more relevant viewpoint. For example, I’m not sure the Japanese would agree with your point that a naval air force is no match for a land based one….or the Serbian air force, or the Iraqi air force or the Argentinean air force for that matter.
44

eric,

21/05/2008 12:01:28
Dont hear Barrow praising the union for the jobs.funny old world eh
45

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 21/05/2008 15:19:09
Hello All Politicians and Boswall,

I do believe that the 'magic' to which Foulkes was referring, was a tactical or strategic nuke targetting the Carrier Group.

Foulkes probably doesn't understand the difference between the two and also probably doesn't understand that if a Carrier Group(s) are getting incoming nukes, their efficacy (the CG's) is the last problem most folks will have on their minds; since land based ICBMs will be flying by the dozens/hundreds, towards cities full of civilians.

The fact that a CG will be turned into rusty vapor (and the crews thereon) becomes rather moot, don't you think?

Cheers from the Rockies

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.